gameshowsfandomcom-20200213-history
User blog:Daniel Benfield/Looking at Pearson's claims about 100%
In the show's entry at User:Daniel Benfield/Sold Pilot Theatre, I mention that "I really could tear apart this pitch's claims, they're that laughable." Well, for my first blog post here I think it's well past time I (try to) put my money where my mouth is. Question #1: What's the fastest game show on earth? Um...1970s Split Second? Three on a Match? Jeopardy!, maybe? You're about to find out the answer. ''Host: Welcome to 100%.'' wut Pearson Television is about to change the face of TV, with a game show that's more game and less show! Oh, really? *eyebrow raise* clip ''Host: What is your name and where are you from?'' ''Contestant: Hi, I'm Kevin Welch and I'm from Hampton, New Hampshire.'' Hi, Kevin. You look like you'd rather be anywhere else. ''100% features three contestants in a no-nonsense high-velocity general-knowledge quiz. clip is shown of a question'' That looks...kinda dull. It's only "high-velocity" because it's nothing but questions being asked with no comments from the players or host, and the editing suggests that even brief pauses will be cut out on this show. It moves forward with the speed of a video game, an ultra-modern competition far more engaging than the internet! Good lord, where do I start. First off, video games, especially by 1998, generally had some kind of hook to grab your attention and keep it, whether it was vibrant graphics, an engaging storyline or cast, the feeling of accomplishment, etc. Speed wasn't the only thing you should've appropriated, guys. Second...if this is "an ultra-modern competition", I don't wanna be part of this genre anymore. Finally, yes the internet wasn't as expansive in 1998 as it is today (little in the way of social media, for instance), but I'm pretty sure it had porn back then too. In the space of 22 minutes, contestants answer 100 questions about entertainment, history, sports, everything and anything! "...But at no time will there be episodes dedicated to any one subject, which might actually be mildly interesting." The highest-scoring contestant gets $10 for every correctly-answered question, but if they get 100% of the questions right, they win $100,000! Yeah, funny thing: the British franchise, totalling about 1,500 episodes across three distinct versions (original, 100% Gold, and 100% Sex), had a record score of 94 - and that was on one of the many specials dedicated to one specific subject. The record under the standard format was 87. Yes, the payout structure here is more generous (the British version gave a flat £100 to the winner regardless of score), but it's still amazingly cheap. You're only offering $100,000 because you know it'll probably never be won, aren't you? It's an irresistible challenge and a must-see finish! An "irresistible" challenge is usually one that stands a decent chance of being won. Also, if all three players miss a question, I don't care anymore because it means they're playing for three figures. Not that I cared already, of course, since all the clips you've shown feel so generic, with bored-looking players and an offscreen host who sounds like he recorded all his questions and comments before the actual tapings. Did I mention this show is cheap? General-knowledge tests are '''very' popular in the United States, and with audiences around the world.'' They show a list of four quizzes here: :Jeopardy! - fair enough, I suppose. :Trivial Pursuit - they probably mean the board game, but as a game show it failed to sell in the 1980s and got 13 weeks in '93. :20 Questions - they probably mean something more modern, but as a game show it ended in 1955 with revamps going unsold in '75 and '89. :The $64,000 Question - yeah, know how I can tell you're full of crap, Pearson? This show ended in 1958 and was rigged. The problem with listing these four is that none of them were straight-up general-knowledge quizzes: Jeopardy! uses 13 specific categories per episode, Trivial Pursuit always used six specific categories, 20 Questions had panelists asking questions about one specific mystery object at a time, and The $64,000 Question drew its material from specific subjects picked by the contestants! And even then, all these shows were more than just asking questions, like the audiovisual flair or host-player/guest interaction. 100% has none of that. In the U.K. and France, '''100%' has doubled its audience, improved upon its lead-in, and has improved the time period performance by 80%!'' What they don't mention is that the show replaced the last half-hour of a test pattern loop. (I kid.) With its sleek streamlined format, '''100%' is redefining the game show.'' There is such a thing as "too much game, not enough show". Just saying. Also, "redefining the game show"? You're boiling down the quiz show format to its absolute most basic aspects. This is boring, cheap midseason replacement filler. And it's made by the game show experts Pearson Television - the world's largest international independent producer, with 150 programs currently in production in over 30 countries, and over 15,000 hours of programming and distribution worldwide. This little spiel is said over clips of shows like Family Feud, Let's Make a Deal, The Price is Right, and the 1970s Match Game, among other shows I'd rather be watching. Are you offering Price in syndication, Pearson? No. You're offering this pile of bland. And you're calling yourselves "game show experts"? Seriously? Not only did you buy much of your back catalog from other companies, but barely two years earlier you were trying your damndest to turn Match Game and Card Sharks into barely-recognizable turds! (And their next few revivals weren't all that great, either.) When it comes to multi-daypart programming, you can't do better than '''100%'.'' Actually, I'm pretty sure you can. With almost anything. ''100% is advertiser friendly.'' Who'd want to put their adverts in this show's commercial breaks, though? This is the kind of show you put on if you want to fall asleep. ''100% works well as an adjacency to game shows and news.'' Well yeah, if you want to make another show look better by comparison, then sure. And is perfect counter-programming to sitcoms, reality, and talk shows. Lemme see: unfunny sitcom, "reality" bullcrap, trashy talk show, or bland game show. Pretty sure none of those beat watching a blank screen for the same length of time. Question: What's the fastest game show on earth? Answer: '''100%', the game show with more game and less show, now available for your station from Pearson Television!'' ...I pass. And so did a lot of people, it seems: 100% ended up airing in just seven markets (all major cities, though) and was canned in September 1999 after just eight months, with some episodes left unaired. Oops. -Daniel Benfield (talk) 04:49, June 19, 2017 (UTC) Category:Blog posts